You are here: / / REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL...

REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL IS SPECIFIED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER APPLIES ONLY TO DEATH AND BODILY INJURY CLAIMS, THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A VANDALISM EXCLUSION IN THIS PROPERTY DAMAGE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The policy contained an exclusion for fire caused by vandalism if the property had been vacant for 90 days. Plaintiffs acknowledged the property had been vacant for six months at the time of the fire, which was deemed to have been deliberately set. Supreme Court denied the motion pursuant to Insurance Law 3420 (d) which provides that coverage cannot be denied unless the ground for the denial is specified in the disclaimer letter. However, the Second Department noted that Insurance Law 3420 (d) only applies to death and bodily injury claims, not property damage claims:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Insurance Law § 3420(d) expressly applies only to claims involving death and bodily injury, and has no application to claims for property damage such as the one in the present case… . . Moreover, the defendant is not precluded from invoking the vandalism exclusion under the common-law principles of waiver or estoppel …, since the plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that the defendant intentionally relinquished its right to rely on that exclusion or lulled the plaintiffs into sleeping on their rights and thereby prejudiced them by its conduct … . Swanson v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04311, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

INSURANCE LAW (REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL IS SPECIFIED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER APPLIES ONLY TO DEATH AND BODILY INJURY CLAIMS, THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A VANDALISM EXCLUSION IN THIS PROPERTY DAMAGE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DISCLAIMER LETTER (INSURANCE LAW, REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL IS SPECIFIED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER APPLIES ONLY TO DEATH AND BODILY INJURY CLAIMS, THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A VANDALISM EXCLUSION IN THIS PROPERTY DAMAGE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURED MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO DEFENDANT INSURANCE-BROKER FOR COVERAGE AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE BROKER; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Improper Notice of Benefit Termination; Four-Month S/L Never Triggered; Termination Annulled
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD COMPLIED WITH THE “HARD LOOK” REQUIREMENTS OF SEQRA AND PROPERLY GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT). ​
HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN DID NOT DEPART FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE; THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BUT A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED AT HIGH SPEEDS AND IGNORING TRAFFIC... ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S...